Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-13-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes The following changes were made to the minutes of October 30, 1985: On page 2, in the sixth sentence of the fourth paragraph, the second "much" should read "more". Commissioner J. Harris moved to waive the reading and approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. ( Relative to those minutes, Chairman Peterson noted that the Saratoga News had quoted him as saying that he did not think that a winery in Saratoga would be a good idea. He stated that he had said that he did not think the City could find another winery to move into the Paul Masson property.) The following changes were made to the minutes of October 23, 1985: On page 2, the second sentence in the last paragraph should read "...back on the lot...". On page 8, in the fourth paragraph under A-1016, UCB should read UBC. Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of October 23, 1985 and approve as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried, with Commissioner Siegfried abstaining since he was not present. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-1147 - Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Varnell, Request for Design Review Approval for a single-story addition to an existing two-story residence which, with the addi- tion, will exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. standard for gross floor area, at 19917 Merribrook Drive, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district 2. SDR-1478 - Thompkins and Associates (Charles Johnston), Request for a one-year extension of a Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivision at the southern end of Brookwood Lane, in the R-1-15,000 zoning district 3. SUP-11 - Vuka Stepovich, Request for a Second Unit Use Permit Approval to allow an existing detached one-story second unit at 14233 Old Wood Road, in the R-1-20,000 zoning district 4. SUP-12 - Charles Bolander, Request for a Second Unit Use Per- mit Approval to allow an existing detached one- story second unit at 14321 Douglass Lane, in the R-1- 20,000 zoning district 5. SUP-15 - Randy and Linda Thorsch, Request a Second Unit Use Permit Approval to allow an existing, detached, one- story second unit at 14199 Saratoga Avenue, in the R-1-12,500 zoning district 6a. UP-592 - Saratoga Office Center Limited (Owen Companies), 6b. A-989 - Request for Design Review and Use Permit Approvals to exceed the number of signs and square footage of signage permitted by the ordinance for the Saratoga Office Center Limited development at the southeast corner of Saratoga and Cox Avenues, in the P-A zoning district 'Planning Commission ' ~ Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 7. UP-593 - J. Lohr Properties, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow the operation of a model home on Lot 1 of Tract 7655 (northwest corner of Radoyka and Cabernet Drives) for the sale of new residences in the sub- division, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district 8. A-1148 - J. Lohr Properties, Request for Design Review A-E Approval for the construction of one-story, single family residences on Lots 5, 9 and 30, and two- story residences which exceed the 3,500 sq. ft. floor area standard on Lots 3 and 28, at Tract 7655, Brookview School Site, southeast corner of Radoyka Drive and San Palo Court, in the R-1- 10,000 zoning district Items #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, #2 listed above. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #1, A-1147, at 7:35 p.m. Staff stated that they would like to remove Condition #8 from the Staff Report and the applicant agreed. It was moved and seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve A-1147, Mr. and Mrs. Gilbert Varnell, with the deletion of Condition #8. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The public hearing was opened at ~:37 p.m. on Item #3, SUP-11. Mike Stepovich, representing his mother, addressed Condition #2 of the Staff Report relative to parking. He asked that it be waived, indicating that there is a large parking area which would take care of eight cars and there is no parking problem. Commissioner Burger gave an on-site report, describing the site. She agreed that there is a parking area that would accommodate at least eight cars. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried noted the size of the lot and the fact that the structure has been there a long time. He added that it has had no impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Burger commented that as soon as a covered parking space is located in the logical area, the capability of a turnaround is eliminated at the end of the drive. Commissioner Peterson added that he thinks the intent of the Second Unit Ordinance is to make sure that off-street parking is provided for the second unit, and he feels that the intent is met. Commissioner Siegfried asked the City Attorney if the Commission would have control if the applicant later asks for an addition. The City Attorney commented that the use permit will be recorded and recommended that a condition be added that reads "No additional expansion to the main or second unit dwelling is allowed without prior approval of the Planning Commission." Commissioner Burger moved to approve SUP-11, Vuka Stepovich, per the Staff Report dated November 7, 1985, removing Condition #2 and adding the condition as stated by the City Attorney relative to additional expansion. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 5- 1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. The public hearing was opened at 7:47 on Item #4, SUP-12. Mrs. Johnson, Douglass Lane, gave the history of the second unit, indicating that the applicant had turned it into two apartments. She stated that they had been rented out separately to two individual people, not related and not senior citizens. She noted the traffic caused by this situation. She described the site and the buildings. - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 SUP-12 She stated that if the Commission does approve the use permit, the neighbors request that the Commission are very concise in spelling out exactly what is meant under the definition of "Occupancy". She stated that there is nothing in the Staff Report under that section to guarantee that the applicant will not again have two apartments, with more traffic. She noted the opposition to the application and the correspondence received. In answer to Commissioner Siegfried's inquiry, Mrs. Johnson indicated that the second unit per se is not objectionable. She commented that the goodness of the neighbors has allowed the applicant to continue to misuse the property, disregarding any violations. She added that at this time he is now renting to one woman, a senior citizen, with one car. Commissioner Siegfried explained that the second unit would now be under the control of the Commission and it can be revoked at any time if there are problems. Commissioner Burger clarified that the second unit was carefully inspected by Staff, and there is only one second unit on the site at this time. Mr. Bolander, the applicant, explained that the unit is a two-bedroom apartment and there are two people who are roommates. He explained the car situation relative to his family. Dr. Lohr spoke in opposition to the application, stating that he feels it would be against the best interests of the neighborhood. Commissioner Burger gave an on-site report, describing the site. She indicated that it would be possible to put a covered parking space in the paved asphalt area between the main house and the second unit; it would not be visible from the street if located there. Mr. Bolander stated that, since the cars are not viewed from the street he does not feel that a covered carport would add anything and would stand out by itself in the middle of the lot. He explained that he had a private inspector check and see if the building is to code, and therefore he would like to have the building permit fee. waived. Staff stated that they would like to add a condition stating that the use of the fuel tank be abandoned. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris expressed concern about the structures being so close to the property line. She asked about the possibility of removing the carport and building a three-car garage in another location so it is out of the setbacks. Commissioner Burger commented that she thinks that possibly a two-car garage could be built on the other side of the lot. Commissioner J. Harris commented that a shop brings noise, particularly when it is so close to a rear property line. Commissioner Peterson commented that, in terms of the philosophy behind the Second Unit Ordinance, it seems to him that this is a classic example of exactly what the Second Unit Ordinance was meant to do. That is to take illegal units and give the Commission the ability to look at them, ensure that they are up to code, and make an intelligent decision as to whether or not they should be legalized under a conditional use permit. Commissioner Siegfried stated that if this were a proposal to build a new unit he would not be in favor of it, because he feels it would have impact on the neighborhood. He commented that he hates to see a use that has been there for a long time to be suddenly denied. He added that he would be inclined to approve the use permit since it gives the Commission control over it, with the applicant understanding that all the conditions apply. He stated that he would not want to see him build a third covered parking space, because if the use is changed or there are problems with the neighbors because it is being rented contrary to the ordinance, then it would have to be taken down. It was clarified to Mr. Bolander that there would be a $50.00 fee for - 3 - 'Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 SUP-12 the building permit. Commissioner Siegfried suggested, because of the neighborhood concern and because it is so drastically within the setback, that the use permit come back for review in a year. He pointed out that, unlike approving a variance which is forever, this will be under the use permit process and the Commission has the right to review it at any time. He moved to approve SUP-12, Charles Bolander, per the Staff Report, deleting Condition 1 regarding the covered parking space and adding the conditions that the use permit be subject to review at the end of a year because of the neighborhood concern and the setback problem, and that the fuel tank be discontinued. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. Commissioner J. Harris stated that she voted against the application because of the small setback that goes almost the entire width of the property. The appeal period was noted. Regarding Item #5, SUP-15, Randy and Linda Thorsch, Staff added the condition that the gas fired heater be moved away from the combustibles, in accordance with the Fire Department's request. The City Attorney commented that this is a situation where there is a tenant residing on the property who is not a senior citizen, but falls within the special provision of the ordinance that allows for the continuance of existing tenancies. He stated that under those circumstances, and in each case like it, he would like an additional condition on the use permit that if the tenant vacates the owner is then required to recertify compliance that the unit is then occupied by a senior citizen. He added that there would be an automatic certification after five years; therefore, if the tenant continues to reside there for five years there would be no problem. However, if the tenant moves out, this condition would give the City some control so that we would know that the unit is then occupied by somebody who complies with the age requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve SUP-15, Randy and Linda Thorsch, per the Staff Report dated November 9, 1985 and Exhibits B and C, adding a condition that the gas fired heater be moved away from combustibles and the condition relative to the tenancy as stated by the City Attorney. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #6, UP-592 and A-989, Saratoga Office Center Limited at 8:25 p.m. Steve Douglas, of Owen Companies, addressed the condition requiring that the sign at Saratoga and McFarland not be illuminated. He indicated that they would like to illuminate that sign in the same manner as the one at Saratoga and Cox. He also noted that a correction should be made to the report to indicate that the signs are all concrete. Staff stated that the key reason for the condition not to illuminate the sign was to reduce the impact on a residential area. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger agreed with the Staff Report relative to the illumination of the sign at Saratoga and McFarland. She stated that she feels that the illumination at Saratoga and Cox would be sufficient. She added that in the winter time most of the people that would see the sign after dark would be headed south on Saratoga, and in the summer time both signs would be visible from natural light until 8:30 or 9:00 p.m. She commented that she is in favor of keeping the impact to the residential areas as low as possible. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner Burger moved to approve UP-592 and A-989, Saratoga Office Center Limited, per the Staff Report dated November 5, 1985 and Exhibit B, amending the Staff Report to reflect that the signs are all concrete. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. (Commissioner Siegfried was absent from the discussion and voting on this item.) The public hearing on Item #7, UP-593, J. Lohr Properties, was opened at - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 UP-593 8:30 p.m. Richard Wilde, the applicant, asked that Condition 3, relative to selling from the model home, be deleted. He explained that they have recently begun work on the Congress Springs site and they would like the ability to begin to sell that project from this model home until one is built in the new subdivision. He commented that they would also like a condition added that should the occasion rise to move the model home location within the subdivision, the applicant could come back to Staff for that approval. Staff clarified that the Commission does have the discretion to allow the sale of homes from another subdivision being developed by the applicant. Commissioner Peterson expressed concern that the people at the Brookview area will continue to be impacted by traffic. Mr. Wilde stated that he feels that the Staff has conditioned the application for parking to minimize the impact in the neighborhood. Staff commented that it is their feeling that each individual development should sustain its own impact on that particular neighborhood, as opposed to having the impact of sales from other areas all in one spot. At Commissioner Siegfried's inquiry, Mr. Wilde indicated that they would not specifically be advertising for the Congress Springs subdivision at this model home. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve UP-593, J. Lohr, changing Condition #3 to state that the applicant can sell homes in the Congress Springs subdivision subject to there not being an additional marketing campaign to sell homes in Congress Springs from this location, and addingcondition 6 that any change in the model home location be subject to Staff approval. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Peterson dissenting. He stated that he feels that the model home should be located in the Congress Springs subdivision. The public hearing was opened on Item #8, A-1148, J. Lohr Properties, at 8:37 p.m. Richard Wilde, the applicant, indicated that one of the two story homes is slightly over the 3500 sq. ft. criteria, and the other is quite a bit over that criteria. He described the five homes being considered. Discussion followed on the home on Lot 3. Concern was expressed by the Commission about such an imposing house on a 11,500 sq. ft. lot. The applicant clarified that they would maintain a 25 ft. height. After discussion there was a consensus to pull Lot 3 and continue it to a study session. The applicant agreed, and asked that the square footage on Lot 28 be approved at 3551 sq. ft. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1148 B through E, J. Lohr, per the Staff Report dated October 29, 1985 and Exhibits D through K, changing the number of the square footage on Lot 28 to 3551 sq. ft., and deleting Condition #3 regarding the trees on Lot 3. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Chairman Peterson indicated to the applicant that the feeling of the Commission was to follow fairly closely to the square footage that was discussed when the subdivision was approved relative to Lot 3. Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he had a real problem with the proposed style of home for Lot 3 with 10 ft. side yard setbacks. Mr. Wilde asked, regarding Condition #5 which requires that the exterior colors be earthtone, if pastels could be added, i.e., whites, grays. Commissioner J. Harris amended the motion to have Condition #5 read that - 5 - ~lanning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 A-1148 the exteriors are to be earthtone or subject to Staff approval. Commissioner Siegfried accepted the amended motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. It was directed that Lot 3 be continued to a study session on January 14, 1986 and the regular meeting of January 22, 1986. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. UP-594 - J. Lohr Properties, Request for Use Permit Approval to allow an 8 ft. fence where 6 ft. is the maximum permitted along the rear property lines of lots 19 through 30 (the northern and western property lines of Tract 7655) adjacent to the Prospect High School property in Tract 7655 at the southwest corner of Radoyka Drive and San Palo Court, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district Staff described the application, recommending denial, having been unable to make the findings. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She stated that she did not feel that an 8 ft. fence would eliminate the problem as far as the lights on the tennis court are concerned. She indicated that there are no lights on the stadium. She added that she feels there would be a great deal of noise and there would be a problem of trespassing from the school yard on what will be private property with individual residences. The public hearing was opened at 8:55 p.m. Richard Wilde, the applicant, indicated that there were a lot of the high school students trespassing through the project and noted the complaints from the neighbors along San Palo Court. He added that he is not sure that a 6 ft. fence is going to stop the trespassing. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger stated that she feels this is a classic example of adding 2 feet onto a fence that is not going to impact anybody. She commented that the additional 2 feet is going to make a large difference to the people who are going to be living there. She added that she feels it will prevent a great number of people climbing over the fence to break through private property. Commissioner J. Harris noted the possibility of the high school property being developed, and she commented that she would hate to see 8 ft. fences between two neighbors. Commissioner Pines stated that a precedent would be set for all the neighbors on the south property line to request an 8 ft. fence. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he does not feel the 2 ft. will make that much difference to set that kind of precedent. Commissioner Siegfried moved to deny UP-594, per the Staff Report. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 5-1, with Commissioner Burger dissenting. The appeal period was noted. Break - 9:00 - 9:15 p.m. 10. A-1133 - Philip and Patricia Sondeno, Request for Design Review to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. design review floor area stan- dard at 21412 Continental Circle (Tract 6528, Lot 34), in the NHR zoning district; continued from September 11, 1985 (to be continued to December 11, 1985) It was directed that this item be continued to December 11, 1985. - 6 - P'lanning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 lla. SDR-1610 - Brian Kelly and Barbara Harris, Request for Tentative llb. V-712 - Building Site Approval for one (1) lot and Variance llc. A-1134 - and Design Review Approval to permit construction of a new, two-story, single family residence within 23.5 ft. of the rear property line (existing home to be demolished) at 14101 Loma Rio Drive, in the R-1- 12,500 zoning district; continued from September 25, 1985 (to be continued to December 11, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to December 11, 1985. 12a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1612 - Morrison and Fox 12b. SDR-1612 - Morrison and Fox, Request for Tentative Building Site 12c. A-1136 - Approval and Design Review Approval for the construc- tion of 12 apartment units at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, in the RM-3000 zoning district; continued from October 9, 1985 (to be continued to December 11, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to December 11, 1985. 13. A-1052 - Mark Rapport, Request for Design Review Modification Mod. Approval for the construction of a two-story residence which exceeds the allowable floor area standard and approval for grading which exceeds 1,000 cubic yards combined cut and fill, on Lot 4, Tract 6732, Montalvo Heights Drive, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (with- drawn) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 14. SUP-8 - Nadine McCullough, Request for a Second Unit Use Permit Approval to allow two existing detached one- story second units located on two separate parcels at 14985 Quito Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district (recommended to be continued) It was directed that this matter be continued to February 14, 1986. 15a. Negative Declaration - Kemp Carter - SM-22 15b. V-715 - Kemp Carter, Request for Variance Approval for an 15c. SM-22 - existing 10 ft. high handball wall with 3 ft. high basketball backboard extension (total 13 ft. height) located within the required side yard where 6 ft. is the maximum wall height allowed, and to permit a new recreational court with 10 ft. high fencing with no side yard setback where 20 ft. minimum setback is required, and Site Modification Approval for the recreational court and relocated volley ball court to be on a slope which exceeds 10%, at 19306 Pinnacle Court, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district The application was described by Staff. They recommended denial of the variance and the site modification for the recreational court and approval of the site modification for the relocation of the volleyball/lawn area. Discussion followed on the setbacks and height of the fences. The public hearing was opened at 9:25 p.m. Mike Dillon, the landscape architect, addressed the Staff Report, indicating that they have a permit to do the grading for the back yard. Staff clarfied that the applicant does have a grading permit; however, it does not show the sports court; it shows it at the same elevation as the driveway. Therefore, the grading has not been done according to the approved set of plans. Mr. Dillon indicated that as of July 1985 they had applied for revisions to the permit and received building permits to redesign the wall in the present location as built. ~lanning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 SM-22 and V-715 Mr. Dillon discussed the grading, indicating that the current grading is substantially less than originally proposed. Staff suggested that this matter be continued, to verify that the grading was approved. Commissioner Siegfried commented that, even if it is found that the grading is permissible, it still does not solve the problem of a 10 ft. fence on the property line. Discussion followed on the 10 ft. retaining wall which has been constructed, and Staff stated that they do not believe that the plans show the wall at that height. The City Attorney stated that under the existing ordinance, as well as the new ordinance, relative to a recreational court, the restriction on the 10% applies to the condition of the site before any grading is done. He added that, whether the grading has been done or whether it may have been approved by another area of Staff who may not have been aware of conditions on this project, doesn't change the fact that the process before the Commission would be the same. He commented that the only issue is whether the applicant may or may not have departed from the approved grading plan. However, if they modified the grading plan it was not with reference to a recreational court. Mr. Dillon addressed the variance application, describing the site. He discussed the Staff Report, asking that the area be considered a rear yard, rather than a side yard. He stated that SM-8 of August 8, 1985 should be listed under other approvals. He also noted that the 10 ft. fence would be on the property line, but not the court itself, and discussed the paving. Mr. Carter, the applicant, stated that they had acted in good faith. He gave the history of the project and addressed the current proposal. He indicated that he has contacted all of the neighbors and there will be appropriate landscaping. He added that his proposed sport court is in the same area and same position as his neighbor's sport court, and the contour of his property is very similar to the contour of his neighbor's property across the fence. He noted that there are two other sport courts that have been granted in the area. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris inquired about the setbacks relative to a side yard or rear yard. Staff clarified that what has been called the left side were interpreted to be a rear yard, a 15 ft. setback would be required rather than 20 ft. Discussion followed on the definition of rear and side yards. Commisisoner Siegfried stated that he would like an answer to the grading question, and also would'like some comparison relative to the neighbors' sport courts. He added that he finds it difficult to believe that they were approved under similar circumstances. Chairman Peterson commented that he is making the assumption that the applicant did this in good faith. However, the perception is that they did the grading and put in a 10 ft. wall and a 10 ft. fence for a sport court. He pointed out that the applicant had not previously come in for an approval for a sport court, the retaining wall, the fences, or the variance. There was a consensus that if a vote were taken at this time it would be for denial. The appeal period was noted to the applicant. It was determined that this matter will be continued to the next meeting, to allow the applicant to work with Staff relative to answers to the grading. The applicant was also asked to supply any comparable situations regarding the sport court, and supply information as to approvals. Mr. Carter pointed out that the previous grading plan that was approved would have been satisfactory to him; however, it would have been very unsatisfactory to his neighbors and also from the impact for any future use on the Odd Fellows side. It was directed that this matter be continued to December 11, 1985. - 8 - P~lanning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 11/13/85 16. C-229 - City of Saratoga, Consider the adoption of new Zoning Ordinance constituting Chapter 15 of proposed City Code; continued from October 23, 1985 No one appeared to address the Commission. It was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on November 19, 1985 and the regular meeting of December 11, 1985. MISCELLANEOUS 17. EP-24 - Sam Cohen, 14700 Farwell, Encroachment Permit to allow a 6 ft. fence to be located in the City's right-of-way Staff described the application, recommending denial. They indicated that the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Staff Report should be deleted ("It appears that some work has continued on the fence".) They explained that some work had been continued on the fence; however, apparently not that portion which encroaches into the street. John Rumel, representing Mr. Cohen, discussed the history of the fence. He addressed the Staff Report, pointing out that there is no planned improvement to the road. He referenced the letter from the applicant, which indicates that he would be willing to remove the encroaching portion of the fence in the event that the City in the fuure decides it needs it for public improvement. He also referenced the letter from the residents in support. He indicated that there is no hindrance to parking from the encroachment because people do not park in that area and there is ample parking and very little traffic. Commissioner Siegfried asked if the fence could be pulled in closer to the court. Mr. Rumel stated that that could be done; however, the concrete base fence would have to be taken out. He noted that the neighbors are appreciative of the fact that the applicant has put in a more aesthetically pleasing fence. He indicated that the applicant would enter into an indemnity agreement with the City. Mr. Rumel questioned conditions 5 and 6 of the Staff Report, stating that other encroachment permits had been issued without those conditions. Relative to condition 4, he indicated that Mr. Cohen suggests that the fence be built, and then have the staff review it to decide whether it really needs some kind of covering. Commissioner Burger commented that the applicant had indicated that there was a large gap between the two sections of fence which would be a gateway for the children to enter the sport court area. She added that, therefore, the fence could be moved back from the encroachment and still provide a gate wide enough for the children. Mr. Rumel pointed out that the applicant had built the fence in good faith. He commented that the applicant had estimated that it would cost between $4,000 and $5,000 to rip out the existing work. He noted that, relative to the 2 feet of the basketball court being eliminated, the court has been there for a long time and has never been a problem. He added that it would also be damaging to the court area. Commissioner J. Harris commented.that this is a big piece of property and she does not see why there should be any encroachment, even for the court itself, but certainly not for the fence. She added that, when driving down Farwell, it is very obtrusive the way it juts out. She indicated that the other homes along that area have big front yards and no fences out on the street. Commissioner Siegfried commented that he had no strong feelings one way or the other. He stated that he does not see any particular reason why it needs to encroach. On the other hand, he does not see any reason to make the applicant remove the basketball court that has been there for several years. He added that if he could move the fence back to the court or within a very significant area close to the court, it would be a small encroachment but it would not be anywhere near as significant as what is suggested. Commissioner Pines concurred. He added that he would be more concerned if it was at the corner where it would really - 9 - ~.-Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 1 /85 EP-24 affect the view around the street. Staff pointed out that conditions 5 and 6 have not been on previous applications; however, the new City Manager has suggested these two conditions. Discussion followed on these conditions. Commissioner Burger moved to approve a modified encroachment, permitting moving the fence back to the edge of the court, retaining conditions 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Staff Report, and deleting conditions 5 and 6. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which failed 2-4, with Commissioners B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson and Pines dissenting. Commissioner Pines stated that he had voted no because he does not see any point that is served by moving the fence that already exists, and still allowing it to encroach. Commissioner Peterson agreed. Commissioner J. Harris moved to deny EP-24, per the Staff Report dated November 8, 1985. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which failed 2-4, with Commissioners Burger, Peterson, Pines and Siegfried dissenting. Commissioner Pines moved to allow the fence to encroach as proposed, per the conditions in the Staff Report, deleting conditions 5 and 6. Commissioner Peterson seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote 3-3, which is deemed to be a denial. Commissioners Burger, B. Harris and J. Harris dissented. The appeal period was noted. COMMUNICATIONS Written - None Oral by Commission 1. Staff stated that the City Manager had requested that the Commission make a policy decision on the Village Beautification Plan. Commissioner Siegfried moved to recommend to the City Council that this be established as the current City policy on what would happen with projects in the Village. It was noted that the intent would be to add on to this policy. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 2. It was noted that the Planning Commission Ch'ristmas party will be December 14, 1985. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending and the Good Government Group for attending the meeting and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT It was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rob~ Sho0k~' Secretary RSS:cd - 10 -